Broken Army

[BT]

The preferred course is this: wisdom before courage

Wisdom being defined as capitulating to car bombers?

[domer]

That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.

[Plane]

I like to think of car bombing as foolish , that is why I don't encourage it as a tactic for my own favoriate causes.


I suppose that this foolishness might have an advantage over what I think of as wisdom though.

[BT]

That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.

Apparently you are willing to capitulate to car bombers as the majority of the violence in Iraq comes from them. And you are eager to leave, are you not?

Whether or not that is wisdom before courage is questionable. But it seems to be what you are saying.

[Plane]

That's gratuitous nonsense. From what you know of me, do I capitulate easily, or at all? What "wisdom before courage" means is that one must know what he's doing, which Bush does not.

Apparently you are willing to capitulate to car bombers as the majority of the violence in Iraq comes from them. And you are eager to leave, are you not?

Whether or not that is wisdom before courage is questionable. But it seems to be what you are saying.

I wonder if the dicotomy is real?

Is strength incompatable with wisdom?


Would a wise person, or nation , given the choice prefer to be strong or weak?


Would this entity be wise to foster a perception of his own  strength to  opponents ?

[domer]

BT, I really don't like to have my thinking contorted into the categories of your mind. I think I've been pretty clear. It is like saying: "BT wants more soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq" because that's the consequence of HIS policy. The point is to get beyond this horseshit. I'll say it again: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A LONG STAY IN IRAQ THAT WILL SERVE US JUST AS WELL OR BETTER IN THE OVERALL CONFLICT WITH VIOLENT, RADICAL ISLAM? DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CHANCES ARE BETTER WITH A STAY-POLICY THAN WITH A WITHDRAW-POLICY FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS? WHICH IS LESS COSTLY, IF THE TWO ARE CLOSE? IS IT, IN THE END RESULT, JUST A FLIP OF THE DICE? POINT ME TO OBJECTIVE INDICIA SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, AND DISCUSS CRITICALLY THE POSSIBLE GAINS FROM A WITHDRAW-POLICY IN A COMPARATIVE FASHION.

[BT]

I don't see any advantage in leaving before our job is done as i see it defined. I see tremendous disadvantages in a premature withdrawal from Iraq as sooner or later we will be fighting the same foe somewhere else. Might as well do the job now and do it well.

You say we are paying too high a price in blood and treasure for this excursion. The carbombers expect casualties in their war, why are we so special that we should not expect the same in ours?

You ask for hard data to support my opinion, i don't have it. I just have my observations.

As i have stated already, i don't believe we will need to be there for decades. But we will need to stay for at least three more years.

[domer]

See my post in the other thread, which largely can be seen as a response to these comments as well. Summarized: no one knows. Setting Iraq policy is more difficult than discovering the Theory of Relativity. If it is clearly predominant considering all relevant factors, the "stay for three years option" would be the one to choose.

[Lanya]

A long war like what?

A war your representative government decides is necessary. a war you have been complaining about since day 1.

And of course you aren't willing.

You want your freedom and you want your security and you talk about shared sacrifice, but that's just your lips moving, because you certainly aren't willing to pay the price.

And if that isn't broken, what is?

You see the results of this war, and you call the American people broken rather than be willing to say that Bush was wrong?

He was wrong from the start, BT.  You may call me broken but it doesn't hurt me and it doesn't help any of the people hurt over there. 

Why haven't the people who have been loudly cheering this war gone to fight in it?  The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are  typing away in the USA.   That's how you can tell that this war has  not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it.  That usually means they know something's up;    they sense that it is not a necessary war.   
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq. 

[BT]

You see the results of this war, and you call the American people broken rather than be willing to say that Bush was wrong?

Why should i say he was wrong when i don't believe he was wrong.

He was wrong from the start, BT.  You may call me broken but it doesn't hurt me and it doesn't help any of the people hurt over there. 

My assessment wasn't meant to hurt, it is the way i see it. There are and always have been casualties in war, i can accept that. You are naive to think war will result in anything else. The insurgents expect casualties, why are we exempt. 

Why haven't the people who have been loudly cheering this war gone to fight in it?  The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are  typing away in the USA.   That's how you can tell that this war has  not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it.  That usually means they know something's up;    they sense that it is not a necessary war.   
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq.

I served when it was my time, so did my brothers. My son is serving now. Save your 101st Keyboarders snark for someone else. Popular support does not determine the worthiness of a war. We heard the same mantras when we went into Afghanistan.

The dems converted Irag to political capital. You now have the congress. As i said previously, do what you will. Consider your moves carefully. Our grandchildren depend on you making the right move.






 

[sirs]

The Fighting 101st Keyboarders are  typing away in the USA.   That's how you can tell that this war has  not got broad popular support: Even its biggest supporters are not in it.  That usually means they know something's up;    they sense that it is not a necessary war.   
Afghanistan was (in my opinion). Not Iraq. 

So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?

[Plane]

BT, I really don't like to have my thinking contorted into the categories of your mind. I think I've been pretty clear. It is like saying: "BT wants more soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq" because that's the consequence of HIS policy. The point is to get beyond this horseshit. I'll say it again: IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO A LONG STAY IN IRAQ THAT WILL SERVE US JUST AS WELL OR BETTER IN THE OVERALL CONFLICT WITH VIOLENT, RADICAL ISLAM? DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE CHANCES ARE BETTER WITH A STAY-POLICY THAN WITH A WITHDRAW-POLICY FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS? WHICH IS LESS COSTLY, IF THE TWO ARE CLOSE? IS IT, IN THE END RESULT, JUST A FLIP OF THE DICE? POINT ME TO OBJECTIVE INDICIA SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, AND DISCUSS CRITICALLY THE POSSIBLE GAINS FROM A WITHDRAW-POLICY IN A COMPARATIVE FASHION.

To me the best thing to do is to imagine myself in the other shoes.

If I were a US soldier what would I want to hear , how would I want to be treated?

If I were an Iriqui , what end results would I really benefit from , who'se respect would I want?

If I were an Al Queda recruiter how could I twist every word and deed of the US and others to the advantage of my cause?


When I can't accomplish this , I have to think I don't know enough yet.


Of these the only shoes I have really worn were those of a sailor , and no I didn't want a Greek chorous stateside chanting "loose, loose ,loose "

[Lanya]

So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?

First of all, I did not say that only those who fight can honestly support it.  I am showing you that those who support it loudly and often are not there, helping out with the fighting.  Seems very odd because this is a huge war to them, a war that will bring about a beacon of peace and democracy  to the Middle East.  Seems even odder because they surely know about the men who are called back having already gotten disability for PTSD. 
I didn't serve.  I was born in 1953, I have a minor son at home and other people needing my care besides. 

[yellow_crane]

So, since you deem that only those who fight in the war can honestly support it, and you supported the war in Afghanistan, when did you serve your stint?

First of all, I did not say that only those who fight can honestly support it.  I am showing you that those who support it loudly and often are not there, helping out with the fighting.  Seems very odd because this is a huge war to them, a war that will bring about a beacon of peace and democracy  to the Middle East.  Seems even odder because they surely know about the men who are called back having already gotten disability for PTSD. 
I didn't serve.  I was born in 1953, I have a minor son at home and other people needing my care besides. 

   



Disabliity for PTSD is fraught with political polemics.

You will rarely find an alcoholic sufferer of PTSD from the Vietnam era in treatment for their alcoholism.  They will stay away from AA meetings.

Reason?

If they are found to be alcoholic (many are), the disability checks stop coming.  Being alcoholic, they are rendered unqualified for PTSD disability rights.

[Brassmask]

Sure it is. The American People had plenty of opportunity to question the war pre invasion. The American Peoples representatives had plenty of opportunity to vote no against authorization. The missing ingredient was courage. The same ingredient missing from the American people. They fail the gut check. And the "enemy" knows this. They have known it since Viet Nam.

I disagree.  The American People DID question the war.  I remember distinctly marching in two marches here in Memphis and I did write my representatives and they disregarded my pleas.

Now, I've been against invading Iraq from the beginning so for you to sit there and tell me that I had plenty of time to stop it is, frankly, moronic and insulting.  I was not "for" invading Afghanistan but I didn't oppose it either.  The lie they told about why they were doing it made sense to me and so I didn't mind it so much but even that has been an horrendous failure.

As for "gut checks", I was in here and on the streets telling people that invading Iraq was wrong when it was allegedly supported by nearly 90% of Americans.  (that 90% had been lied to and led to believe that Saddam was involved in 9.11 so who can blame most of them?)  Personally, I'm proud that I didn't keep quiet, that I did have the "guts" to tell you guys that your big rubber finger waving was going to get us into a quagmire (it has), and get a lot of Americans maimed and killed (it has) and get a lot of Iraqis killed (it has) AND it would make the world less safe for Americans (it most certainly has).  So, buddy, don't be running off at the mouth John-Wayne-style.

Cowards follow and don't question the government no matter how much it lies to them.  Any delusions some may have about this Iraq thing bringing forth the fruit of democracy and transforming the middle east into some kind of US-flavored region endanger more Humans every day.

We're in a time in history where, like LBJ and Nixon at the height of their lies and treachery, the time will come very soon where there will be talk of intervening and removing George W Bush from the presidency and anyone else who follows and wants to continue down the road of insane truculance he's chosen and his choice will be to either resign, be impeached or declare martial law.   And I daresay, that Bush, being the egocentric moron he is, will choose the last of the three.